By www.DefendMyDomain.com
In the recent domain name dispute decision of The Procter & Gamble Company v. Richard Jones FA 1266787 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 22, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.scopemouthwash.com. Complainant is the well known global products company with such famous brands as TIDE, PAMPERS, and CREST. They maintain a web site at www.pg.com and also have a web site for SCOPE at www.getclose.com. Respondent failed to respond to this Complaint.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In addressing the first element, the Panel noted P&G has a trademark registration for the mark SCOPE in the U.S. and in other countries around the world. The Panel found that the term mouthwash was descriptive of P&G’s business. As a result the Panel found that the domain was confusingly similar to P&G’s mark.
Moving to the second element the Panel noted that P&G presented a prima facie case, and since Respondent failed to submit a response the Panel could assume there were no rights or legitimate interests. Regardless, the Panel still chose to review the evidence presented by P&G. Respondent’s web site resolved to a parked page with click-through links, for which the Panel presumed Respondent was gaining revenue. The Panel also found that the Whois information provided showed that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). For these reasons the Panel found P&G satisfied the second element.
Moving to the final element, bad faith, the Panel explained:
Complainant alleges that Respondent is using a domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCOPE mark, to attract Internet users to a website containing links, some of which resolve to websites of Complainant’s competitors. The Panel concludes that appropriating Complainant’s SCOPE mark to divert Internet users is likely disrupting Complainant’s business and that such use constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
The Panel also found the bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) since Respondent intentionally attracted Internet users for financial gain. Ultimately, the Panel found that P&G satisfied all elements and ordered the TRANSFER of the domain.
